August 6 GOP Debate. Let the Decimation Begin.

If your fixation prevents you from staying on topic, I can't help you.

 

Two political parties is just a front. In reality we have only one. But it has two wings, the Democratic wing and the Republican wing. Both parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, lobbyists, Wall Street, Special Interests etc. Oh sure, those special interests will vary, some will talk bad about Wall Street and corporations, but do with a wink and a nod. Neither party is willing to risk their tens of millions and in presidential races hundreds of millions by really peeving off those who give them most of their money.

Both parties are business as usual parties. They play around the edges of government, but government as a whole remains the same and continues to grow into an all powerful entity. Third parties have no chance of becoming viable as we have a monopoly with the two parties. The Republicans and Democrats write the election laws as a mutual protection act and to ensure no viable third party arises. Those special interests, corporations, Wall Street Firms and lobbyists won't give any money to third parties, they give in their opinion too much now to the Republicans and Democrats. But they will always continue to fund their campaigns and candidates as the return they get for their buck is tens times more than what they give. A sound business investment.

 

As I said............

 

I fully recognize the extent to which the duopoly aligns as well as the respects in which the two sides differ, and I make choices, of necessity, based upon the differences.

Under the present power structure, were a viable third party (or fourth, fifth, or sixth, for that matter) to arise, it would be beholden to the same elite manipulators. Unless, they are deprived of their ability to buy government to serve their acquisitive agendas, the oligarchs will continue to do so.

Major campaign finance reform is desperately needed, and the forces that conspire against it are formidable.

- - - Updated - - -

What have you said on this thread concerning its topic?

 

I agree. I worked hard for Perot and then the Reform Party before it was hijacked by Pat Buchanan. But any third party has to get its billions from someplace. About the only place for that is the same corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests the two major parties are beholden too. Needless to say, I do not have much hope for the future.

 

The left is only focused on Trump right now. So you're saying both sides are all fixated on each other.

 

If a level playing field were established by publicly-funded campaigns of reasonable duration, coupled with the ability of the voter to specify an order of preference on the ballot*, democracy would be unleashed, and party control would be eradicated.

* The voter has the chance to rank the candidates in order of preference.

The voter puts a '1' by their first choice a '2' by their second choice, and so on, until they no longer wish to express any further preferences or run out of candidates.

Candidates are elected outright if they gain more than half of the first preference votes. If not, the candidate who lost (the one with least first preferences) is eliminated and their votes are redistributed according to the second (or next available) preference marked on the ballot paper. This process continues until one candidate has half of the votes and is elected.​

Oh, well. One can dream.

 

Some are always focused on "The Left!"

Democrats are undoubtedly hoping Trump continues to wreak havoc on the fragmented GOP,
but it is not good for the nation to see either party dragged into the gutter like that.

 

Uh, in case you hadn't notice, the right is also focused on him because of all the controversy he has created. This despite the fact that the Republican debates haven't even started yet!

 

That is a unique idea. Nevada has None of the above on the ballot, but it does not mean anything. Even if none of the above wins, the candidate with the next highest votes wins. I suppose one can voice their displeasure by voting none of the above, but by doing so it is just (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing. I think if you would put some teeth into none of the above, if none of the above wins, then a new election would be called minus anyone who appeared on the ballot in which none of the above won.

As for public financing of campaigns, for most of my life I have been against it. But in my old age it sounds more appealing everyday. At least that would take the clout of the special interests, corporations, Wall Street and lobbyist away. I also would like to see the campaign season shorten. Starting almost two years out is way too long, but in today's situation it is a must. I think public financing would work for the general election, I am not sure how it would work for the primaries. But I am open to almost any idea.

I also would like to see gerrymandering done away with. A simple law that states counties must remain whole as much as possible could actually do that and stop all these snaking districts which run for miles down the middle of the road just to connect voters who like the same party. But it is all a pipe dream.

 

I think a lot of people on both sides of the aisle have come to recognize the pernicious effect of gerrymandering, hence why redistricting reform has taken off in many places (California in 2010, for instance). It's certainly a slow process, but it's moving in the right direction.

Regarding the upcoming Republican debate, a lot of ink has been spilled talking about Trump, but it's clear to most informed observers that he's just a flavor-of-the-week candidate that will fade once his time in the sun has passed. It's just like Howard Dean, Michelle Bachmann, and Newt Gingrich in the last few election cycles. For instance, punters on BallotCraft give Trump a 2% likelihood of winning the debate (much less the nomination). Jeb and Rubio are at the head of the pack, as the pundits would expect.

 

Since Rupert Murdoch, Rear Admiral of the FOX flagship of the ascendant media entertainment branch of the GOP now wields power over its mutiny-ravaged political subsidiary in matters of presidential politics, it's worth getting the lowdown directly from the proverbial equine orifice.

"When is Donald Trump going to stop embarrassing his friends, let alone the whole country?"
— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) July 19, 2015

"Fox Thursday debate vital for all candidates. If Trump gets thru unscathed it will be big win. Time for all to understand his support."
— Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) August 2, 2015​

So, Roopie pegs the Trump as an embarrassment to his (imaginary?) friends and the nation, and supposes that, as such, he could be a big winner?

Sounds like a big loss for those (imaginary?) "friends" and the nation.

​

My call? The old bugger's 'reality' tv formula - unpaid, dubious "talent", wretched script, and low production costs - guarantees him a big payoff!


Turdblossom, eat your heart out. It's Rupert's game, now.

 

Rupert is stealing the comedy shtick. Will he tap Paul Shaffer for the drumroll?

​

...A smörgåsbord of Young Republicans at a fun 'rave' with their pants on.

 

That's not true. Fox cannot possibly conduct a debate among 17 people in the allotted time slot so only the top 10 will debate during prime time. The remainder of the candidates will debate at 5pm. This is fair and honest.

 

Rupert has completed the GOP's take-over by the media entertainment wing of the party, and he has picked his ten.

He could have easily accommodated all 17 at the adult table by having them all spout the same boilerplate rhetoric in unison. Much time will be wasted upon the repetitive obligatory bellywhinging about the President, the prospective Democratic nominee, and Democrats in general.

Whoever appears most embarrassed to be included in Rupert's assemblage wins.

My money is on Kasich.

​

(I still think that Rupe should have opted for Gordon Ramsey as the abusive moderator of the Fox Follies.)

 

The problem with the republicans is simple...with the republicans the leadership represents the leadership leaving 95% of the party abandoned while the dems all march in lockstep...

 

Actually, I think it's the Cupid Shuffle that Bernie's troops are strutting; for Hillary's bunch it's the Cake Walk.

 

Trump won't pander...and Paul just stepped in it

 

Amidst the surfeit of showboats, novelty acts, whack jobs, and tossers, the Wall Street Journal recognized the class act:

 

I agree with what Rubio said, "The Republicans have MANY good candidates, the democrats are still looking for ONE!" I believe that is close to being a quote, and certainly is accurate.

 

Rubio did, on a ladies' chat show on hostile Fox TV, summon the testicular fortitude to opine that he was glad that the Republicans had so many good candidates.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/rubio-im-glad-republicans-many-042922392.html

The logical gotcha! question that his Stepford boosters failed to ask was, "Where are they, and why haven't we ever heard about them?"

That would have sent him running for his bottle!



.